Kamala Harris wants to pack the U.S. Supreme Court – but her why needs some work.
“We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices like we have 13 district courts,” Harris said at a recent event as reported by CNN.
Four more here, five more there. We can just keep adding justices whenever power changes hands in D.C. It could become the most representative branch of government, with one justice for every household.
There’s a big problem with Harris’ suggestion though: There are actually 94 district courts, not 13. Oops.
But, there are 13 circuit courts, and maybe that’s what she meant. Partial credit.
I know, it’s a small flub. But if Harris can’t get basic facts right about the institution she wants to upend, maybe she shouldn’t be trusted to upend it.
After all, Harris served as San Francisco’s District Attorney, California’s Attorney General, U.S. Senator, Vice President, and she appears to be ramping up for what would be a third run for president. She should be able to explain the basics of the American court system without a gaffe.
But there’s an even bigger problem: The idea itself. Packing the Supreme Court is a partisan power grab that has all the thoughtfulness of an activist printing bumper stickers and placards.
Though the number of justices can change with an act of Congress, and did change a few times in the early years after America’s founding, there is no real need for it to change. Except to complete the power grab, which is a bad reason.
Harris and the voters to whom she’s trying to appeal are upset that the current Supreme Court has made rulings based on the justices interpretation of the law — and Harris and co didn’t like their judgement. Nevermind the fact that the current Supreme Court makes rulings that both delight and annoy people on both sides of the aisle.
Justices should be independent and objective. The role of partisan warriors is best left to Congress. The Supreme Court is for resolving legal questions and creating case law. Congress is for making laws lawmakers like.
If Democrats want a federal right to abortion, they should just pass a law, not upend the court.
And the upending would never stop, which is no way to run a country.
A better way is to create the laws you want by winning popular elections, which, for Harris, is the challenge. She has lost her last two presidential campaigns.
It makes sense Harris wants to “revisit” the Electoral College because Democrats loathe it. For some reason they’re more concerned with winning the national popular vote, which, sadly for them, doesn’t determine the outcome of presidential elections.
What would it mean to “revisit” the Electoral College? It’s purposely vague and could mean lots of things, but in a separate interview, Harris floated the idea of getting rid of the Electoral College altogether.
Harris also called for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., again, for purely partisan reasons (it would be packing the Senate instead of the Senate). While there might be merit to statehood, there’s no merit in doing it just to give the country more politicians.
Harris’s comments stand in stark contrast with Democratic campaign themes professing to be protecting democracy. These are undemocratic ideas, at least for the reasons proposed, which undermine an actual democratic idea like free and fair elections.
Though all the evidence suggests it won’t happen, Harris seems intent on becoming president, and sees her path to the White House paved with silly ideas.
But silly ideas and all, Harris should still get her facts straight.
Matt Fleming is a columnist for the Southern California News Group